We are going to keep the unrecommend feature.

[Skinner]

By now, I think most of you have probably heard that we upgraded the DU Recommend function to allow people to "Unrecommend" as well. For those of you who missed it, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021143">here is my thread from last week announcing the change.

The DU admins have been monitoring the new feature, and we are pleased to see that it is working more-or-less how we intended it to work. In fact, I think it is working better than I expected. Our motivation for giving you the ability to unrecommend was to improve the overall quality of the threads that make it to the DU Greatest Page, while giving a boost to topics that have broad appeal to our members, and it seems to be doing just that. We believe the unrecommend function has been a success, and it is a net positive for our community.

Obviously, there are many people who are not happy about this change, and have said so. After trying the new system for five days, we believe that the most dire predictions have not come to pass. However, we do believe some of your concerns are legitimate. We have been closely monitoring the system to see how it is being used and abused, and will continue to do so. So far, it is our impression that the vast majority of DUers are trying to use the system in a fair and responsible manner. A small number of people have used it in a manner we would consider irresponsible, and an even smaller number have been grossly abusive in their use of the system. We have the ability to bar members from using the system if they abuse it, and we have taken advantage of that ability in a few extreme cases. But we believe it is very difficult for the small number of abusive users to have much impact because there are so many people using it in a responsible manner. For the most part, the ratings seem fair. Obviously, there are exceptions -- but I don't think it makes sense to throw out the entire system because a few deserving threads did not make it to the greatest page, or because a few undeserving threads did. Overall, I think that happens a lot less under our new system compared to the system we had before.

We are going to continue to monitor the system to see how it is working, and how it is not. We are committed to making any changes that we deem necessary and appropriate so that the system is relatively fair and free from abuse. One change that we are considering -- which has been suggested by many of you -- is to get rid of the "<0" designation so threads will never display a rating lower than 0. We believe this change would take away one incentive for people to abuse the system, and it would not affect our goal of improving the content of the Greatest Page.

Also, now that we have the system in place, there are a lot of cool things we can do with it. Many of you have suggested that we could crunch the recs and unrecs in new ways in order to create lists of highly controversial threads, or popular threads, or threads with the most positive recommendations, or whatever. We think it would be cool to do this. If we can provide you with more different ways to experience DU, that's a good thing.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we improve DU. And thank you for all of your feedback.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

[Blue_Tires]

1. thank you for the new feature....

[inna]

234. unthank you for the new feature....

[question everything]

299. +1

It is amazing that many DUers think that the only way to prevent a thread from being "great" is to "U" it. They are too lazy to realize that most threads do not get there. That these are not the only two options.

The fact that some threads get "less than 0" within the few seconds of posting and with fewer than 10 views suggest that some have their own agenda.

[MidwestTransplant]

306. What does "+1" mean? Somebody had it in the subject to a reply to me a couple days ago.

Thanks

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

308. I think it means "agree"

or even worse: "ditto"

[question everything]

316. Right. I started seeing it around and I like it better than "ditto"

or me too..

[inna]

317. on many forums, any comment in a thread can be given +1 or -1 by any forum member...

+1 obviously for :thumbsup: (i.e., "i agree, good comment"), and -1 obviously for :thumbsdown: (i.e., "crappy comment")...


DU doesn't have that functionality/software (yet?), hence many people who use that feature have to do it manually here, i.e. by spelling "+1" or "-1" next to a particular post. (although i've seen some people here use "+100", or even "+1,000" when they strongly agree with something - it's cheating, though! :) :P )



anyway, in context of DU, +1 or -1 is simply a shorthand way to express one's agreement or disagreement...

[MidwestTransplant]

318. Thanks. I will look forward to the day I get a +1000 on my post!

[louis c]

236. I liked it before the change

Who needs the negativity?

[scentopine]

288. Obama is polarizing democrats with his resistance to change

This isn't an unrec feature it is a "report an anti-Obama post" feature. I work 12-14 hours a day. Still, I had no problem filtering through the greatest page.

So, why not make it official and create an "anti-Obama" button where Obama enforcers can look for anything critical of Obama and flag the poster with a scarlet letter next to his name every time he/she posts? Patent it and sell it to the free republic. They will love it.

I guess server space is so expensive we can't afford to waste valuable space with minority opinions. Mass censorship in any of its efficient mechanical embodiments is simply the wrong way.

[ElboRuum]

314. Wow. And I thought I was cynical.

:eyes:

[camera obscura]

2. I'd like to voice my support for replacing less than 0 with the actual # of negative recs.

Otherwise I have no problem with the new system. Thanks for implementing it! :)

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Not a good idea.

This encourages interpersonal pissing matches. Leaving it at 0 is just fine.

[Lasher]

15. I was gonna say the same exact thing.

Get outta my head! :-)

[Bicoastal]

16. oops misread

[BlooInBloo]

31. Me too.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. I think showing the negative tally is most fair.

If we are showing the positive tally, then we should show the neg tally.
Otherwise, change positively rec'ed threads to >0 to be fair, as the negative rec'ed threads are <0

[winyanstaz]

40. I agree..I think we need transparancy and equal knowlege

of what is going on. If you show the one you should show the other.
Thanks for letting us speak up.

[MessiahRp]

166. I'm with you...

Transparency is a good idea. As it stands right now if people want to stop something from making it to the greatest page they know what number to overcome. You have no idea what number to overcome to get something to the greatest page though. Obviously this should not be the goal of rec or unrec but good luck enforcing that.

Rp

[omega minimo]

171. Right if there's no display, participating in a negative pissing match is unworthy of the time.

[omega minimo]

167. Another "vote" for showing total Recs # and total UnRec # -- otherwise it's a slide into oblivion

How many DUers have mostly stopped Reccing or UnReccing due to the arbitrary nothingness of the current display? Something to consider in looking at how this is working out.

[Moochy]

244. me too

And I don't think that the "clarity" explanation of eliminating <0 count is exactly "accurate".

[Bucky]

287. That's because you're curious about the results. But for the community, it's a bad idea.

The point isn't to show how down in the dumps unpopular a given thread is. That could have a shaming effect on the unlucky poster or lead to popularity rec & unreccing... It's enough to just say thread X does not reflect the feelings of this board.

[qb]

304. I add my vote to camera obscura's proposal.

Whether the minimum is <0 or 0, it is terribly ambiguous and unsymmetrical.
Recommendations should be represented on a scale from -∞ to ∞.
Or, for practical purposes, from -2^63 to 2^63-1.

[Scurrilous]

3. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[Oregone]

4. I know you designed this entire feature to suppress me

I wholeheartedly agree

[GodlessBiker]

5. Yea! I love using it.

[BlooInBloo]

6. As for getting rid of less-than-0, you may as well also not display recs-more-than-5, right?

(damn your no-html tags filter! :rofl: )

[Skinner]

10. I don't think we're going to do that.

Because then we'd have to get rid of the right column on the Greatest Page, too.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Ah yes, there is that.

[Usrename]

267. Why would you have to do that?

That doesn't even make any sense.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Thanks, Skinner. I like it.

[UrbScotty]

9. Thanks!

[Ohio Joe]

11. Un-Rec? Why has no one posted about this?

:P

[Skinner]

13. Rofl.

:D

[PretzelWarrior]

12. kudos!! will there be thread locks on the "Unrec" whining?

Or will those continue until people run out of steam? Just curious.

[Skinner]

20. We believe that the discussions are a necessary part of the transition.

It should die down on its own eventually.

[FourScore]

124. Is it possible to be able to see who is rec-ing and un-rec-ing?

Sort of like how they do it at DK...with a drop down bar?

[Liberation Angel]

263. yeah please do this Skinner!

nt

[KoKo]

161. We believe that the discussions are a necessary part of the transition. OMG!

I've gotta' don that :tinfoilhat: for that one. :eyes:

Don't tell me you've gone to the Dark Side...and that you've forgotten "Selection 2000?"

[Chemisse]

228. It's been really entertaining too!

[Sterling]

329. That's double plus good

Skinner, with all due respect, you have had a great thing going with DU from the start but, over time it seems that the dialogue has become more about people's personal grudges and petty nonsense that really in the end just dulls down the level of discourse on the site. I am sure it is not easy to run a site like this. I have to say that I enjoyed the way things were back in the "old days" when the site was less restricted. I learned a lot from fellow posters, even those I disagreed with. Now I find less interesting discussions and a narrow viewpoint being expressed. I don't have the time to come here as often as I used to and when I do and find a discussion that interests me I often find it locked before I can even post my own comment.

I also find that some posters and opinions are more equal than others in some very obvious ways. When I first found your site in the early Bush years it was a rare oasis of free thought. Over time that has diminished considerably IMO. I don't assume to accuse you of having any agenda but I see a difference in the way people are allowed to express their ideas here. I enjoyed reading posts from many different perspectives. Sometimes I enjoyed OP's that I disagreed with more than those I supported. It gave me a chance to examine a different point of view. I do think that the name calling and the personal attacks should be kept under control but that is a separate issue from what I see here that bothers me. I do think the site could do more to civilize the level of discourse and that would only make DU more attractive and effective as a place to share ideas and potentially help people organize for the Democratic/Progressive cause. I have never been bothered too much by opinions I do not share. It is more often the way they are presented that is disturbing.

Best,

Sterling

[chill_wind]

33. AND the Sore Winner nose-rubbing ones? Like I said elsewhere, even Unrec

will not be enough for a few, along with ignore, hide, alert etc.

[EFerrari]

125. Yep. n/t

[KoKo]

162. Those of us who care...have got to work HARDER...is what he's implying.....I think?

????

[EFerrari]

172. I don't know. I'm not very much into trying to control things

I have no control over and probably shouldn't be driving in the first place.

I trust Skinner.

[KoKo]

177. That was my point...n/t

[gkhouston]

315. People will run out of steam. I mean, there's only so much water on the planet.

Of course, DUers residing in alternate realities may be able to siphon off water from elsewhere for all I know...

[merh]

14. thank you Skinner and EarlG and elad

:yourock:

[Spazito]

17. Thanks, Skinner!

I believe the new function is a positive addition to the site and am glad it is to remain.

[panader0]

18. I believe you admins have the best interests of DU at heart

I'm glad to be a member.

[CoffeeCat]

19. It's just like when they changed the parking-lot procedures...

...at my children's elementary school.

Everyone howled and had VERY strong opinions when these changes were proposed.

Then, when the changes happen--everyone just adjusted without a whimper.

Human being resist change. Even when the change is really not that big of a deal.

I pay no attention to stuff like this. If DU is still here, I'm happy as a clam!

[Melissa G]

21. I have accidentally hit the unrec function.

I did not have my glasses on when it first started and thought it was a rec place by muscle memory. There is no ability to correct for this. I miss the confirm option on the rec/ unrec. It is a real bummer when you want to rec something and you accidentally unrec.
Thanks,
Melissa

[LiberalFighter]

23. Too bad it couldn't be located somewhere else.

[BlooInBloo]

26. Agreed.

[PretzelWarrior]

28. yeah. I've done that too.

[BlooInBloo]

32. I wish I had glasses to use as my excuse, though.

[Lochloosa]

38. Same here. Can it be moved over Skinner?

[ContinentalOp]

160. I think a simple green thumb up, red thumb down icon like a lot of sites use would help

That would make it harder to make the same mistake. And "unrecommend" is kind of an awkward term anyway.

[sendero]

240. Most browsers..

... have an option on the View menu to control the Text Size. Maybe you should use it.

[Melissa G]

327. I do use it. To the size that I don't have to scroll.

After scrolling size, I move to glasses. Depending on how tired my eyes are, I sometimes need them. The unrec size type is borderline for my eyes. There are sometimes I can read it, sometimes not.

I'm sure there are a lot of baby boomers and up on this board that have challenges with the type size.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Definitely a plus feature. Don't expect to use it much. But have already.

[omega minimo]

268. How can such a negative be "Definitely a plus feature"?

:freak:

[Coventina]

25. Hi Skinner, I'm primarily an LBN poster/user and one thing that

continues to bother me is the "un-recing" of LBN threads.

EarlG acknowledged the issue, but I still think it reflects poorly on DU that factual stories about rescued miners, kids getting organ transplants, etc. can be rated <0 (as has happened).

I'm fine with people thinking they don't belong on the "Greatest Page". In fact, I don't post with the intent of getting on the "Greatest Page." But there's something bizarre (and morally wrong, IMHO) about DUers visibly voting down a story about the Khmer Rouge facing justice.

Thanks,

Coventina

[wildflower]

27. I've thought about this, and I'll add my vote for the neutral 0.

Also, you're probably aware of this, but there are many reasons someone might unrec a thread. In my case, the topic may be fine, but I really cringe at the language used to convey it (violent or misogynist language, for example). I find I'm rarely using the unrec, but I do use it in that case.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

107. That's a great point

I was thinking the same thing. There are as many reasons why someone would use un rec. The vast majority of posters here feel the same 'core values' and will rec or un-rec accordingly.

There are responsible reasons for going against the grain.

If there were a 'neutral' vote perhaps this would give a voice to that other sphere.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I would very much like to see both pro and con recommendations reflected.

I would think visibility of the total vote/recommendation both pro and con would/should be a basic Democratic/democratic fundamental tenet of the people's ability to express them selves.

I believe the current system of not reflecting pro/rec votes and con/anti rec votes does a disservice to the minority of whatever issue,subject or candidate the thread will be about.

You could still require a 5+ pro rec to make the Greatest Page.

Thank you for your efforts.

[inna]

30. PLEASE show THE NUMBERS OF BOTH recs and unrecs, NOT JUST THE TOTAL!!

what is the reasoning behind showing only the total net votes?? seriously, why?? :shrug:

why not show the tally of positive and negative votes, like many other forums do?


it's somewhat misleading when a thread that got 100 recommendations and 97 unrecs looks exactly the same as a thread that got only 3 recs.

[Common Sense Party]

39. I, for one, want to see the negative # of votes.

Like rubbernecking a car wreck, I think I would pay MORE attention to a thread if it had high negatives.

[inna]

42. personally, i'm more interested in the positive #...

... but basically i'm all for transparency, and i simply do NOT understand Admin's argument against transparency. (if there's one, that is.)

[Jester Messiah]

203. Would that lead to a "Worstest" page?

Actually that would be kinda fun...

[omega minimo]

175. Zackly.

Helpful to know just how much negativity an affirmation is up against.

[inna]

232. i want TRANSPARENCY, man!!

:rofl:


(no, i really do. :D )

[Robb]

34. Skinner, you still haven't addressed this:

...I mean, really. WTF, man. :D

[JVS]

71. GET OVER IT!

;-)

[Autumn]

80. He did address it

but you missed it because he used his sockpuppet and only six people know who that is.

[Robb]

81. Dammit. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

140. On the other hand, I don't think he ever addressed adding "Robb is a dingbat"

as a mandatory 11th option to all polls, either. :shrug: It's probably just as well, since it would invariably win a lot of them (when it didn't come in second to "I like to vote".

I kid, I kid.;)

[Political Heretic]

36. Define "overall quality." That's the problem - you haven't and can't.

"Our motivation for giving you the ability to unrecommend was to improve the overall quality of the threads that make it to the DU Greatest Page"

Define "quality" for me.

[Skinner]

44. Obviously it is a subjective judgment.

Which is why I used fudge words like "it seems to be" and "we believe".

[Political Heretic]

49. Subjective. That doesn't mean you can't lay out a subjective definition for "quality"

You can still define the term, as you use it, even if that definition is subjective.

So we'll agree no objective definition is possible. That doesn't rule out the ability for you to at least explain how you're using the term in this context.

I for one would like to hear what you define as "quality" in the context of your post, subjective or not.

[PretzelWarrior]

88. oohh....you go get him, tiger.

I think you're too bored. Perhaps some time spent feeding the homeless at a local shelter can give you some renewed perspective?

[Political Heretic]

109. Not that its any of your fucking business, by my grandmother is about to die.

Then, given the fact that my grandmother is in the last stage of cancer, and I've moved home to support my mother while her mom dies a very painful death I do happen to have some extra time during the day, though I can't exactly go volunteer right now since that sort of defeats the purpose of why I dropped everything to move out here (which was to be with my mother for support while she goes through this and help as needed with my grandmother).

It always amazes how how frequently a difference of opinion gets spun into personal judgments and assumptions about the personal life of someone, which you know nothing about, which has no relevance at all. It's cheap, childish and petty.

Finally, take a look at my profile... particularly the "I have been:" section. And get over your judgmental self.

[apocalypsehow]

265. Uh-huh.

:eyes:

[Sterling]

330. Agree

"It always amazes how frequently a difference of opinion gets spun into personal judgments and assumptions about the personal life of someone, which you know nothing about, which has no relevance at all. It's cheap, childish and petty."

You have expressed my least favorite thing about DU these days. Why can't people act like grown ups? I can't say back in the old days here I was never guilty of getting caught up in that but my better sense of respect won out in the end. The board has degenerated a great deal and it seems that personal insults have taken the place of rational thought. I find the site less interesting as a result and definitely less informative. Sometimes it can be out right bad for a person’s character if they spend too much time here in that kind of environment.

[MilesColtrane]

105. When I consider if a thread is worth recommending, I think about...

...whether the thread, taken as a whole, would appeal to the interest of the average DUer, or has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I call this the "Modified Miller Test".

More often than not though, I simply apply Justice Stewart Potter's wisdom; I know a quality thread when I see one.

[Political Heretic]

119. Justice Stewart Potter is a dumbass.

And the "I know it when I see it" response to a definition of pornography has helped absolutely no one.

It's not that much to actually request that the administrator of a site define what he means by "Quality" even if that definition is subjective. It's fair.

If I don't get that I'll live. But people writing back acting like its ridiculous ....are ridiculous.

[MilesColtrane]

123. Good luck with all that, chief.

[northzax]

249. fine, I'll define 'quality'

from the perspective of the owner of a message board: that which attracts more people than it rejects'

as for Potter's definition of 'pornography' that is in fact, the right one for a country of this size and diversity. how can you possibly establish a community standard for a country that includes Time Square (at the time) and Dubuque? (nothing against Dubuque) Pornography, like a great threat, is a purely subjective standard. you know it when you see it. you and I may well have completely different definitions of both. heck, my avatar on this board was banned because it included a picture that some people on this board complained about. It was a photo of the girl on the side of a WWII bomber. 55 years ago. and yet, since people complained, I removed it. community standards and all. I don't expect this community to completely comply with my personal standard of propriety. Surely there is stuff that I would see as perfectly normal that would sicken people on this board, and stuff that would sicken me (there must be something) that would be titillating to others. c'est la vie.

[dixiegrrrrl]

111. You may remember Phadreus' issue with defining quality.....

:evilgrin:

[Buns_of_Fire]

155. I surely remember Robert Pirsig's problem with it! (n/t)

[Divine Discontent]

250. I've pretty much stayed out of the 'rec-unrec' threads, bc I cannot understand the major energy

being dispelled about it. These questions, although they're being serious in asking them, make me giggle that I don't have this kind of drama over simple ideas to give people the voice to say they don't like a thread without having to comment on it.

My hats off to you three for running the site pretty smoothly for the 5 years I've been on here. I can't imagine running the thing, thank God for the mods to help! LOL

Peace! :headbang:

[Common Sense Party]

48. Instead of "quality" how about "improve the overall smell"

There, that fixes it.

[nilram]

67. I like it -- more un-recs, less poo. nt

[freeplessinseattle]

198. for one, I think the threads that are rec'd as a joke, such as

containing a funny typo inn title, or are have a "whoops, please delete, meant to reply not start a new thread" or something really lame like that that make it to greatest too often. among other types of "lower quality" threads.

Being deemed "greatest" is subjective in itself, so being deemed less or greater quality is of course subjective as well. How could it be otherwise?

[Catherine Vincent]

37. And that's that!

:)

[WeDidIt]

41. I'd recommend this

but recommend and unrecommend don't work for me right now.

:)

[Gold Metal Flake]

43. All I ask is that you never limit how many threads can be hidden.

Between Palin V. Letterman, MJ and unrec, I must have hidden over a hundred.

[elocs]

45. Thanks for the feature. Yes, seeing the number of both Rec & UnRec would be nice too.

I would look forward to seeing other changes and experiments and watching how some get all wired and bent out of shape about them. It does make for amusing reading.

[rudy23]

46. If the greatest page isn't as big a deal as the pro-unrec crowd is saying, why have ratings?

What is even the point of the ratings if being on the greatest page isn't a big deal? I was outright mocked by some of the pro-unrec posters for pointing out that unrec gives power to people who blog on behalf of groups.

Besides tipping me off to the fact that many user like unrec TOO much for it to be a good idea, it made me think---for all those who claim to delve deep into the DU lobbies, why would they care about recs one way or another if not for the power of having your post on the greatest page?

[ContinentalOp]

163. I've never visited the greatest page but I appreciate the rec/unrec. It's like a mini poll

And I would like to see the total positive and negative numbers rather than just 0 or <0. When I read something and think "wtf, is this person crazy?" it's nice to know if everyone else is also thinking the same thing or if in fact I am crazy and the person's view is the mainstream consensus.

[omega minimo]

178. "It's like a mini poll" for passive/aggressives.

Maybe that's what people feel like anyway, on the computer, unwilling to use their words, needing a disembodied "vote."

You want mainstream consensus? Democrats and progressives are looking for "mainstream consensus"?

[ContinentalOp]

214. Yes, it's nice to know what mainstream consensus ON DU is.

For example, if I thought that the unrec feature was a crime against humanity but realized that the vast majority of other DUers thought I was silly, I would probably shrug, reconsider my point of view, and move on. Or I would recognize that my opinion was obviously in the minority and think about why I hold that opinion and possibly reconsider it. Or else strengthen my minority opinion by thinking about it more deeply and coming up with good arguments for why I feel the way I do. That's what any reasonable progressive does on any issue.

[omega minimo]

247. Sometimes the "crime against humanity" is the human behavior.

:think:

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Awesome, and Thank You.

This is exactly what I had hoped for. I posted a wish last night that the three of you would post a thread stating your intent to leave Unrec as a permanent part of the DU experience.

Got roundly trashed for it too. Now I feel vindicated LOL.

[SidDithers]

50. Good. Kicked and Recc'd...nt

Sid

[progressoid]

51. Attention Whore.

k/r ;)

[Bluenorthwest]

52. This is encouraging

because I've read a thread about 'we're taking names' and I've just felt less comfortable here since. Not at all my idea of Democratic.

[Peace Patriot]

53. Suggestion: Separate the Rec's and Unrec's, so that we can see how many Rec's there are.

It is important information how many have Rec'ed a post. I don't want that info to disappear as it does now, with each Unrec if they occur. Presently, I just ignore the feature because it is meaningless to me. A "0" tells me nothing. Have 10 people Rec'ed it, then 10 people Unrec'ed it? Have 3 people Rec'ed then 7 people Unrec'd, if the Rec is 4? Is the post being entirely ignored, or what?

[peace13]

219. I agree with you. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. I like it

because it keeps junk from getting on the Greatest Page.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

55. +1 to removing the "<0"

The purpose of unrecommend shouldn't be to punish posters or threads, just simply to counteract threads that are overrecommended for no good reason. (I.e. the whole "Recommend this thread if....." posts that were so ubiquitous and annoying during the 08 primaries and served no real purpose.)

[lpbk2713]

56. Good

:thumbsup: :kick: :thumbsup:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

57. Skinner, is there any way to replace the warning before we actually un/recommend a thread?

I don't know if any one else misses it, but I've accidentally messed up at least once and rec'd when I had intended to unrec and then realized it too late. I may be the only one who misses this, however. :shrug:

Other than that, I like the feature and find it to be more representative to the overall opinions on DU.

Great work on all your parts!

[Autumn]

92. I've done that twice

on two really good threads so now I put on my glasses.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

168. I think I may have even recommended one I intended to hide

Which would explain why it was still there after I thought I'd hidden it. :rofl:

Yep, no more DUing without my glasses for me either. :P

[Renew Deal]

101. I never even looked at that box

I clicked on it so fast it was gone.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

173. It wasn't as if before you much to really worry about

It came up you knew you were recommending a thread. Fast click all is good. Now it may be a bit handy to make sure I've hit the correct button. Or at least to know you may want to apologize to the OP for unrecommending them. :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

194. Absolutely NOT! That's the best part of the current system. Fast & Easy.

If you are having a problem, then slow down. Don't expect everyone else to take two or three times as much time because you occasionally can't get it right.

[shadowknows69]

58. Unfortunate. I think you'll see a decline in original compositions here because of it.

[PretzelWarrior]

61. no. it should increase them. bring your best game to the table

or you will get 0 for a recommend total.

[madfloridian]

73. So not true.

Good writing and well-organized thought don't mean that much.

[Pacifist Patriot]

217. Damn, I hope not.

Those are the criteria I have always used for recommending something.

[defendandprotect]

72. I agree . . . but time will tell --

That problem is also evident in people bringing forth information on America's
many conspiracies which end up in the dungeon.

[hunter]

59. Yep, neutral zero, there's no point shooting things already dead to the Greatest Page.

There are plenty enough pissing matches around here. Keeping an official score will only exacerbate them.

[TahitiNut]

60. Leave it as is. Let the whiners whine. (Their projection is their own problem.)

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

62. Hope it doesn't turn into a popularity contest

.

[TahitiNut]

65. Too late.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

86. Yeah, that was settled on Feb 21st, 2005

That's not going to change any time soon.

[lonestarnot]

252. What is the significance of that date?

[omega minimo]

270. LOL

:rofl: :cry:
:rofl: :cry:
:rofl: :cry:
:rofl: :cry:
:rofl: :cry:
:rofl: :cry:
:applause:

[Time for change]

63. I like the idea of reporting positive and negative recs, which I think you may be suggesting in your

last paragraph.

There is a big difference between a thread with 1 positive rec and 0 negatives, vs. one with 101 positive recs and 100 negatives. The former indicates very little interest. The latter indicates that there are a lot of people who like and appreciate the post, but it is also controversial for some reason. Since I believe that feedback for DU posters is one of the main reasons for having the rec system, making that distinction would be important.

[omega minimo]

179. Yes. And we need to see that for the Rec or UnReck system to have any relevance

Who is interested in dropping "votes" into a void?

[noamnety]

64. Skinner - Can you folks possible make an effort

to reign in some of the inflammatory language people are using when they discuss this issue? It seems to have become acceptable to deride members who dislike the unrec option with personal attacks that normally wouldn't be allowed, reducing people's positions to "whiners, egomaniacs" - stuff like that, when it really doesn't represent their objection to the system. It's not helpful to discussions, and I think it's one of the uglier side effects of the shift in policy. It would help a lot to repair the divisiveness here if that was disallowed.

[Echo In Light]

70. And that apparently speaks to the nature of those who favor it, which is good reason to oppose it

"Whiner" is a pat right-wing insult used against those who voice concern over civil liberties, social safety nets, anti-war peeps ...well, any damn thing, really.

[defendandprotect]

75. agree . . . but it wasn't "whining" when those who wanted this feature went to Skinner . . .??

And when there was no prior discussion of this feature and how it might affect DU
information overall?

[Echo In Light]

83. I'm not saying it isn't one-sided, but rightward people rely heavily on projection

It's fairly simple to decode, actually.

[defendandprotect]

135. Correct . . . they are "projecting" their own whining onto those who don't

agree that Recommends should be subtracted from by "UN"s . . .

[noamnety]

85. Why not avoid that language entirely?

I don't think people on either side should be reduced to "whiners" because the point of that insult is to belittle and mock.

People on both sides raised concerns, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with - and the same seems to be true of everyone.

I'd love to have the mods keep posts which discuss concerns in noninflammatory language, and delete the ones which are openly derisive, no matter which view the posters hold. One of the goals of the system was to reduce divisiveness, I'm suggesting that they disallow posts whose main purpose is to be divisive (as opposed to critical).

[defendandprotect]

137. Agree . . . I didn't originate the inflamatory expressions being used . . .

I am merely responding to their suggestions --

And as another poster has just made clear, this is a right-wing tactic of

projecting

their own behavior onto others.

These are things for DU posters to see and think about --

It unravels the mystery of right-wing propaganda in a sense --

Also, I think what you're sugggesting the mods should be doing would be unnecessary policing
of the website -- bringing it down to a puerile level.

It is the new tool which is creating divisiveness and the divisive posts have followed.

[omega minimo]

181. Indeed. Which is why those who knew about it and wanted it called those it was sprung on, "whiners"

Don't ask any questions. We know, we don't have to tell you. We're "the majority."

[noamnety]

78. Ugh, that's not helping

We can't ask for them to tone down inflammatory language on their side, if we're on this side of the line implying they are using "right-wing" tactics.

Whether or not you believe that to be the case, I think posts like that should refrain from using that language, and instead just phrase the problem in a way that more directly states the problem. "Reducing the complaints to 'whiners' is a way to be dismissive of people who voice concern over civil liberties, social safety nets, anti-war peeps without addressing the content of their message."

Same message, without the same tone.

[Echo In Light]

87. What you're alluding to is incorrect - -

You're suggesting that, say, if a kid in school is verbally bullied, and he/she relays the substance of the incident to someone else, he/she is on par w/the bullies for repeating/explaining the situation.

So, I disagree w/you on that. My pointing out what others are doing isn't me doing exactly what they are.

[noamnety]

94. Nope

Not this: "You're suggesting that, say, if a kid in school is verbally bullied, and he/she relays the substance of the incident to someone else, he/she is on par w/the bullies for repeating/explaining the situation."

This: "You're suggesting that, say, if a kid in school is verbally bullied, and he/she adds their own new verbally inflammatory language to the situation while relaying the substance of the incident to someone else, he/she is loses credibility when asking the that the rules be strictly enforced."

[Echo In Light]

99. "Added inflammatory language?" so far only one 'side' is calling names/"whiner."

Given that, I'm unsure of what you're even talking about - - perhaps you meant to reply to someone else's posting? ...because I've not added "inflammatory language."

Realize that there are those who deem 'negative' anyone who brings up unwelcome data/views.

Doing so doesn't make them, or their views, "negative," but is often construed as such by those who simply don't agree with that view.

[noamnety]

103. I meant to reply to you.

calling out the people accusing us of being whiners - for being whiners themselves, or referring to them as using "rightwing" tactics, may be valid. But it's still inflammatory. I'm thinking of this part of the DU rules: "We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk."

It's true that it is a tactic used by the right wing, but the chief complaint isn't that it's a "right-ting tactic", it's that it's a way to "use personal insults to deflect having to address substance." It's more fun to point out that it's a right wing tactic because we know we'll get a rise out of people by indirectly implying they are right wing.

I haven't said there's an equivalency here. If you think about a white person using an ethnic slur against a person of color, and that person responding with "cracker" - no equivalency at all, because one person holds institution power there. But it's not helpful for the person of color to file a complaint that says "that cracker used an ethnic slur against me." They lose credibility if they sink to similar tactics even when there is no equivalency.

[Echo In Light]

104. To reiterate, by defining what the name-callers are doing, and ascribing a political bent to it....

...isn't a matter of "adding inflammatory language." If the truth behind such motives sucks, than it sucks, but it doesn't mean it's misplaced or invalid, and should be able to be recognized/identified contextually.

[defendandprotect]

150. Correct . . . it is EXPOSING the users of rw tactics such as projection . . .

of their own behavior onto others.

However, I'd give up on the poster you're addressing . . .

there is only one-note playing in her head.

[defendandprotect]

146. Again, note we are QUOTING their own words back to them . . .

and that effort to PROJECT their own behavior problems onto other posters must be noted

and understood.

[defendandprotect]

143. Are you the same poster . . .

who used to run around saying that using the term "female" was an outrage?

Give it a break --

[defendandprotect]

142. Also the PROJECTING tactic that you and I are pointing to should be noted . . .

it begins to unravel the mysteries of right wing propaganda . . .

and everyone at DU should understand the tactic --

:)

[defendandprotect]

141. Why not begin by convincing the people who originated the terms/language . . .??

Let us know how you do --

And, if you haven't absorbed the fact that this is PROJECTING, please give it some thought

because it is a regular tactic of the right-wing which needs to be pointed to -- understood

as part of right-wing propaganda -- and regularly responded to.

[EFerrari]

82. It's been worse than GDP during the primaries. n/t

[Forkboy]

139. Now now, let's not get carried away.

:)

[EFerrari]

148. Nobody during the primaries suggested that I go to another site!

Maybe they were just holding back.

lol

:)

[Forkboy]

154. You must not have been in there enough.

One ex-DUer suggested I die. Talk about going to a different site. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

159. LOL!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

190. Echo In Light is correct

Your points in the subthread are well taken. I agree with your concept and how language works. I doubt though that Echo In Light used the words "to get a rise" out of people. He used them b/c they are true.

That can "get a rise" out of people. And your tactic can avoid that. Some of us say things we anticipate others here can handle and get unwelcome "rises" because of it.

"Whiner" is a pat right-wing insult used against those who voice concern over civil liberties, social safety nets, anti-war peeps ...well, any damn thing, really.

That's true.

It is also a macho insult, used against those considered "effeminate" and easy targets by bullies. You'll notice the RW blowhards always "sissyfying" their targets.

Those are right wing tactcs. Even when used on DU.

Unfortunately, that's the repugnant behavior that jumped out with announcement of the UnReck.

[Laelth]

66. K&R--not because I like the idea but because this is important.

This is what DU has been talking about (a lot), and this is what ought (imnsho) to appear on the GP.

As always, I trust the admins did what they felt was best. I hope they were right. I still thank them for DU and for making the world a better place by giving us DU.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Liberal_in_LA]

68. I don't like it

[Soylent Brice]

69. thank you!

[Better Believe It]

74. I'm not going to unrecommend Skinner's post because that would be undemocratic

I don't want to bump it down and make it disappear from the front page or "the greatest".

Why would anyone want to censor Skinner's post?

In fact, I don't want to censor anyones post no matter how much I disagree with it or dislike the poster.

That's why I won't be using the unrecommend feature.

[charlie]

76. I don't know where else to put this

I'm sorry if this is OT...

If I recommend a thread, the following page is invariably an error page telling me I've already recommmended. I *think* the rec is applied anyway, because I've seen the count increment, but I'm not sure.

I've dumped cookies and re-logged in several times, to no effect.

Any suggestions for me?

[EFerrari]

77. I wish there was a way to make a small offering like Best of the Small Forums

or to weigh those votes or something because it would be a shame if they lost traffic because they can't get exposure. There's nothing on the GP now until you get to 12 votes -- which is a lot for one of those forums.

A box on the Latest or Greatest or even the front page -- maybe not even ranked threads but just forum names, sort of like "Eat at Joes!" to keep up their visibility.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. I suspect smaller forums will benefit under the new system

compared to when we only had recs, because they tend to be read by groups with a particular interest in a subject, who are more likely to have a similar view (apart from a few infamous forums, like Guns or Religion/Theology, that is). So threads in those forums are less likely to attract negative votes than ones in the more trafficed forums, IMO.

You must have seen the Greatest page at a weird moment; about an hour later, it has:
3 threads at +5
26 threads at +6 (1 Env/Energy
26 threads at +7 (1 E/E, 1 Relig/Theo
14 threads at +8 (1 election reform)
25 threads at +9 (2 GLBT, i Economy)
etc.

[EFerrari]

121. Right, no threads from small forums until you get down in the weeds

or when I looked, at 12 votes. To be fair, they never did much better than that consistently. On the other hand, they don't have much of a margin.

While people with a particular interest do read those forums, the conversations can be highly charged, too. I went into the LatAm forum last night and there were six threads by one poster -- news stories -- that had all been voted down for no apparent reason than the user name. That's not useful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. Ah ,sorry, I misunderstood

I thought you were saying that the smaller forum threads didn't make it up to +5 often - and that no threads from any forum were at scores less than +12 at the moment you posted (which did sound weird).

Still, my point about where the unrecs are likely to happen still applies - most of the topic forums are more 'consensus-based', which the 'Big Forums' get most of the controversy. LatAm may be another exception - Chavez is definitely a subject that divides DU. Having said that, I have to go back more than 48 hours (sorted by start time) to find a LatAm forum thread that has a negative count, and I think there have only been 2 out of about 180 in the time since unrecs began that have finished in negative territory in that forum.

Maybe you'll take heart from this bit of Skinner's OP:

"A small number of people have used it in a manner we would consider irresponsible, and an even smaller number have been grossly abusive in their use of the system. We have the ability to bar members from using the system if they abuse it, and we have taken advantage of that ability in a few extreme cases."

[EFerrari]

129. It's funny because there may be like 7 of us who post there regularly.

:rofl:

I'm sure the admins are out there in front of this stuff. :hi:

[Maeve]

79. Thanks, Boss Guys! I like the feature

And have used it :evilgrin:

As long as I don't get on the "abusers" list...:hide:

[Mythsaje]

84. It's been great at helping to point out DUs biggest assholes.

but otherwise I still think it's a repressive, chickenshit, stupid idea that allows people to hide points of view they don't like. Not from themselves, which would require the ignore feature only, but from everyone else. It promotes conformity and punishes independence of thought. But, hey, it's your site. Do what you want. Mob rule rules.

[ecstatic]

100. LOL @ the irony of your post

:rofl: :eyes: :crazy:

[Dragonfli]

255. I'd have to agree with you - before transparency in the system was discarded

One could see that trend clearly.

I don't want to believe that is why transparency was taken away rather than improved with # clarification (the justification for taking away the total was "we could not do math") but I can believe nothing else without a transparent system.

non-transparent = hiding, why hide it if it is doing what was intended rather than being used to hide certain points of view?

[harmonicon]

89. thank you for the much-needed change

I don't delve into DU as much as I used to (too busy with non-online life), so it's nice to have less - what I've considered to be - drivel on the front page and greatest page. It seems to me at least that the feature is working well. I haven't even had to use the "un-rec" as much as I thought I would, as others have already done it for me.

[MilesColtrane]

90. Thank you for working daily to make DU a better site for everyone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. In the interest of making lemonade from lemons... really, really sour lemons...

...I do like the idea of using the data to create a "most controversial" page. Say, posts with an aggregate total of more than 20 recs and unrecs and more than 20 posts.

[EFerrari]

95. That would be fun. And when you think about it, DU is definitely

a heat seeking weapon, lol. It excels at pegging hot issues. :hi:

[MicaelS]

93. Thank you

I would personally like to be able to sort the Recs and Views also. But thanks for not giving into a those throwing a tantrum over the unrecommend.

[Renew Deal]

96. I still believe that you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

This feature works for sites like digg.com or youtube. The reason it works for them is that people are generally coming with same motivation. They are looking to find the most interesting content without much prejudice. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work well on a political site like DU. People here are coming at issues looking to reinforce their views and to acquire information. Along with this comes the goal of expanding your side and diminishing the other. I come to DU to expand my knowledge. I look for posts good, bad, and ugly. I don’t read everything, but posts with a few recs help guide me in the right direction. The unrec feature is an unreliable indicator of what is worthwhile, interesting, relevant, and correct (vs. incorrect). Topics that fit the criteria I listed can easily be lost because they may not be “popular”, “well written”, or from the most popular person. The issue isn’t so much that they won’t make the greatest page. Rather, it’s that they’ll get buried with unrecs. I find this frustrating because we’re taking a very useful and reliable system and replacing it with a subjective and predictable system.

I also believe that there is merit to the argument that it will make people lazy. Instead of people taking the time to agree or disagree with a thread, they can quickly “judge” it with a rec or unrec. There’s no need to truly participate when you can click a button. It will diminish the overall discussion, though it’s going be difficult to detect.

The largest problem is the “tyranny of the majority” issue. This is the primary reason why this feature cannot work as it is currently set up. Just imagine how this feature would have worked during the 2008 primary. The Obama supporters (which I was) would bury the Hillary supporters. Less popular opinions which were sometimes worthwhile would never see the light of day on the greatest page. That combined with the < 0 concept would lead to increased hostility, decreased debate, and a degradation of available information. We’ll see this the next time there’s a red hot issue (like pirates, I/P, or God knows what’s next). We’ve seen this already. A well written criticism of fundamentalist atheism was buried. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with the majority’s views. DU will become an echo chamber.

There are things that can be done to increase the “quality” of the Greatest Page. People have suggested increasing the # of recs it takes to make the page. That’s a decent suggestion. I think you can easily increase it to 10 or even 20 without really decreasing the quality of information. I have found great posts with only 5 recs, but I also understand the concept of the GP. You can outlaw the use of the rec feature for K&R threads. You can more closely moderate the GP, though this leaves you exposed to accusations of bias. Personally, I think you should split the difference. Increase the # of recs to get to the GP and outlaw K&R threads, which are an abuse of the feature. Good luck!

[chill_wind]

132. Some really good sane points and suggestions offered here.

:thumbsup:

[LiberalLovinLug]

303. I RECOMMEND YOUR POST!!!

The problem with this new system is we will never know what we got til its gone, to quote a great musician.

What I liked about DU was not only the major OPs and stories that had the predicted 50+ recs, but also the unusual OPs and stories. Or the ones that bravely take on the majority opinion. Or as you point out, the ones that are a little too critical of the present administration for some zealots. That's a great point about what would have happened to debate if this feature was part of the site during the Hillary/Obama battle.

Sigh. So it seems like its a done deal. Too bad we couldn't have debated this issue further. I'm sure the site will still look great, and I'll still enjoy it. The problem is that there is no way to know what stories I have missed out on because they are too "minor" or "controversial". DU will soon become as you say a 'tyranny of the majority' where, for the most part, the pablum will rise to the top, and the choice meaty parts will disappear before most get a chance to taste them.

[myrna minx]

97. Thank you all for looking to find new ways to make the site better.

:hi: The greatest is a pleasure to read again.

[Javaman]

98. Thank you, Skinner! nt

[Deep13]

102. I like it.

Helps keep silly material off the front page.

[K8-EEE]

106. Love the n/r feature! Keeping the Greatest page Great! n/t

[LynneSin]

108. Any chance you could allow us to change our choice?

I accidently 'unrec' a post I meant to recommend. It would be nice to change it and not just for that either. Perhaps if someone gave me a compelling argument as to why I should support their cause - it would be nice to change your vote.

But it's no big deal, just a suggestion.

BTW, I too agree that you should do away with the <0 thread. Unfortunately there are those who feel free speech is somehow being supressed with that feature. Ironically I had 2 threads in GD yesterday - one got 65+ recommendations (my comments about 'pro-life') and the other was <0 (your picks for 2016 dem nominee). Interestingly enough the <0 thread had more replies to it. Go figure. But perception is reality and some people perceive that if their thread has a <0 next to it then no one will reply.

[Duval]

110. Thanks. I like what ya'll have done. n/t

[ShamelessHussy]

112. Can we have the totals? i.e. Total # of recs and unrecs, please?

Also, it would be nice if we could rate each comment, that would help us filter and read the really long threads which would improve the experience a great deal, imo.

Is that being worked on?

Thank you for all your hard work!

[reflection]

113. Skinner, does the unrec function

have any usage guidelines or suggestions attached to it, or are you leaving that to people to decide on their own?

I don't read every post, but I think it is the latter, based on what I have read from you thus far.

(I think most people who unrec would like to do so in a fashion that is consistent with DU rules, so some clarity as to proper/improper usage might be in order, since you say above that a couple of people have already had their unrec functionality disabled for abuse.)

[EFerrari]

131. This is a really good question. n/t

[omega minimo]

164. Good point

[Skinner]

221. There are no guidelines or rules for the use of the function...

...other than the self-evident "click recommend if you think a thread deserves to be recommended; click unrecommend if you think it does not" guideline. I suppose we could write a set of guidelines, but I doubt people would follow them, and I don't think it's in our interest to try to enforce a long set of guidelines regarding its use.

It is apparent that people are using it in different ways, and for different reasons. And that is to be expected. But here's what's important: The combined effect of all those people acting in different ways seems to be resulting in the desired outcome: A Greatest Page where the vast majority of discussion threads are worth reading. It's not perfect, but as long as it does what it is supposed to do, I don't think we need a lot of rules regarding it's use.

For the record, the people who have lost access to the functionality were using it in a way that (I believe) virtually every DUer would have considered abuse. I have little doubt that the people involved knew they were abusing the system. And I do not think any of them are surprised to see that they lost access to the function. (They might be surprised that they got caught. But given that they were caught, I don't think they were surprised that we took away their access to the function.)

In short: As long as you are using it in the spirit of "click recommend if you think a thread deserves to be recommended; click unrecommend if you think it does not" then you're fine.

[rpannier]

262. A couple of questions

1. What is the criterion for 'abusing' the system?

2. Do you warn people or do you just remove it without notice

[Skinner]

282. There is no specific criteria.

The only people who have lost their ability to use the system were extreme cases of people deliberately using the system in a manner intended to disrupt. It's not a case of simply recommending or unrecommending the "wrong" threads. They knew they were abusing it.

We did not warn them. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Anyone who uses the system in good faith won't have any problem.

[omega minimo]

271. " "click unrecommend if you think it does not" guideline" is negative, ugly, tacky and petty.

That may be the times we live in. Too bad for us. :thumbsdown:

[Skinner]

283. Of course it's negative. The feature is called "Unrecommend."

But if the feature is used responsibly, I do not think it is ugly, tacky, or petty.

[omega minimo]

323. You're right. It doesn't have to be. It did bring out that behavior on announcement.

"A Greatest Page where the vast majority of discussion threads are worth reading. It's not perfect, but as long as it does what it is supposed to do, I don't think we need a lot of rules regarding it's use."




Hope it works out for the best. Thank you.

[Froward69]

114. I would still like

to see a total number of votes... not just a positive number but how many votes total.

Otherwise I do like disagreeing once and awhile.

[LWolf]

115. I'm sorry to hear that. nt

[Rowdyboy]

116. Thank you for your decision...

It is an improvement

[Hutzpa]

118. uh - oh!!

more of this :cry: and a little bit of this :rant:

from the spoilt brats......


Very good decison guys.....:thumbsup:

[Renew Deal]

120. You're proving your own point.

:shrug:

[seaglass]

122. You outdid yourself with this one.

:puke:

[slutticus]

126. Good. The quality of the Greatest page is back to where it used to be....

:thumbsup:

[guitar man]

127. Good

I like it. If my thread gets unrecced that's ok too, maybe I'll write a better thread next time. ;)

[necso]

130. Perhaps it's a necessary balance

between two things I dislike.

But I see no need to show anything other than "0" when a thread goes negative.

Let the new weapon be constrained in its power; let it essentially be a counterweight to the unbalanced (even factionalist) use of recommend.

Or...

[kenfrequed]

133. Well...

While I am still nervous about this feature I suppose it will prove itself one way or another.

[Flying Dream Blues]

134. Great! Thank you. nt

[Stuart G]

136. In my opinion, over the long haul, it will hurt far more than it will

help.. It will create more anger and resentment than is necessary. While the "Greatest Page" may indeed get cleaned up, the discussions will become more ugly. Especially after some posters get relatively neutral threads, that they thought were worth a look, downgraded by those who for any reason are against the thread's topic or the poster. The discussion about this will never go away. The system will be abused, and in the long run hurt DU. (and it will be abused in a way that is not able to be noticed or followed)

[peace13]

328. I agree with you.

Secret UR votes and posts that are bashed because of topic do not lead to a free thinking board. It is all very sad. Unfortunately the Admin is using the same technique that Obama is. Hang with the power and as long as you are a 'good guy'.... folks don't mind if you keep their rights at bay. Not that the users of DU have any rights, least someone remind me that this is a privately owned operation. DU...love it or leave it, it has come to that.

[tandot]

138. Thanks. I like the unrec option.

[jgraz]

144. Dropping the + sign would be a nice fix

There's no need to keep a '+' on a "+5 recs" designation. It just clutters up the GP.

[A HERETIC I AM]

145. Yay.

Good. As I said before, keep up the good work.

[TexasObserver]

147. Thanks. It's a great feature. I've recommended most of the threads that have made it to the GP.

The really good threads jump out at us. They are distinctive. It's no accident one particular poster has so many threads on the Greatest Page. She starts quality threads about quality topics, and they're well presented, without hyperbole or exaggeration. I'm talking about Babylonsister, of course.

[Stuart G]

149. Another word about this...

The fallout from this feature will take a while to notice. That fallout will be subtle and ugly. Discord will increase gradually, (already a problem), and there could be fewer truly radical ideas promoted. The feature could promote "cliques" in certain forums. Time will tell

[G_j]

151. I'm not losing any sleep over it..

though I'm not convinced it's the best thing, but yes, if you eliminate the negative zero, it would feel somewhat more friendly.


.

[MNDemNY]

152. Instead of <0 , or +6 could we have numeric puppie icons? Please?

[defendandprotect]

153. misplaced

[PeaceNikki]

156. Good. I think it's being TOTALLY blown out of proportion.

An unrecommend does NOT always equal "I hate you, this thread sucks!!".

It can also mean: "While you MAY or may not have a point, this is a far cry from something I see as a 'greatest' contribution".

[bertman]

157. I just UNrecommeded this thread, but it didn't change the recommend tally. What's up

with that?

[Davis_X_Machina]

158. In eight-plus years...

...I've looked at the Greatest page maybe three times. You'd think from all the noise that threads were going to disappear from DU altogether, or be banished to some low-rent district.

So this doesn't affect the DU I see -- except for the one hundred and forty three hidden threads this five day's furore have spawned.

Now if there were a hide-by-keyword feature -- so that I could pre-emptively hide any thread whose title contains "I", "my" or "me.

[KoKo]

165. The truth of it is....I and some other DU'ers don't post to get on Greatest Page...BUT

BUT....we do worry that "enemies" we might have gathered throughout long time on DU (if we kept our original handle and not changed it) might have VENDETAS against us.

I think some DU'ers worry about that. I'm Okay with the change with some minor reservations. But...who the hell cares about "Legacy DU'ers" who weren't smart enough to get "Sock Puppets" and change their whole name.

It really doesn't matter does it? Those of us who know who we are...stand up for what our record of posts are about (that matters to what we feel is important) over the years...and that means we take the "slings and arrows" with our need to keep working for DEMOCRACY! Not Bush/Cheney/Clinton/Bush/Reagan DEMOCRACY...BUT...what we believe in.

Yeah...I'm a pollyanna and it's okay. I kept who I was and others have and whether you agree or disagree we still have a voice and place to express our opinion until the Mighty Pizza Delivery rings the Doorbell.

Whatever....

[MessiahRp]

170. Your post has "I" in the title...

Pre-emptively ignored by who you were responding to. :-P

Rp

[KoKo]

174. I'm sorry, Messiah...I should have kept the "I" out of it. n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

183. This is is a meta-thread.

Meta-threads need their own forum.

[KoKo]

184. Great fun...that TRASHING ....Isn't it..?

[KoKo]

189. Yes...sorry about that...

Ugh.. I will learn to do better...I PROMISE!

[HughMoran]

241. BTW, the Greatest Page has only existed for 4 years

So, for the other 4 years, you couldn't have looked at it if you wanted to.

[FlyingSquirrel]

169. I'll be checking in a lot less often then.

Because I will know that the more interesting subjects will often not be on the GP, and I won't have the time to go digging for them elsewhere. Will be hoping to see you follow through on the idea of creating separate lists where those with slightly less than a majority can actually have their views heard - but still feel that the exclusion of those views from the GP is wrong. And that the rec function will continue to be abused because it still has a dual function, as it is being utilized and will continue to be utilized. Popularity should be measured separately from recommended reading.

[KoKo]

176. You do realize...there's no where else to go..Don't You? n/t

[TexasObserver]

188. Ri-i-i-g-h-t. Starting when?

[Uzybone]

180. KnR

thanks!

[diva77]

182. too bad it you can't display the number of recs & unrecs rather than having the

number be the unrecs subtracted from the recs - some posts have "zero" recs because people disagreed with something that had nothing to do with the OP; that is not helpful and causes posts that are deserving of recommendations to appear as if they are of little interest

[KoKo]

186. The word is the LAW....Deal with it...we are only here by "invitation" ..Get Over It!

[omega minimo]

192. Authoritarianism be thy name

:patriot: :spray:

[omega minimo]

191. Yes, without their posted comments, contributing to discussion, who knows what their reasons are?

[Skittles]

185. I was skeptical so this analysis is wonderful

thanks! :thumbsup:

[KoKo]

187. It really does set down the Law...and for that I and others are Grateful.

Parameters and Lines are important. One doesn't ever want to "over-step."

[omega minimo]

195. "One doesn't ever want to "over-step." "

Is this a parody? :rofl:

[usregimechange]

193. Initially I didn't like it because folks were k/u threads out of spite and because...

I thought it would drown out minority views, which I tend to want to oppose. But that is what the greatest page is - a collection of popular threads, now more broadly popular.

[KoKo]

196. There's NO SPITE! That would be awful on a sight for "Truth" like this one...

and forget about folks "misusing or abusing" this for their own reasons.

Truly the "Greatest Page" is SOOOOOOO much better after these changes. I give Kudo's to Admins for finally figuring out how to deal with all our complaints.

It should be "smooth sailing" from now to 2010 with the Congressional Elections! Less hassels for Mods and Admins. This site can CRUISE ON IT's OWN!

Good Thing, I think.

[Strong Atheist]

197. Yes, I would like to see the

<0 function gone, but I see you have already done...

something in the lounge, which is good...

:yourock:

~SA

[omega minimo]

199. A good sign?

When the belligerent glee of those salivating over their new :nuke: toy became overwhelming, I (reluctantly) used the Ignore feature to make THEM disappear.

Not many Ignoreds are showing up in this thread or the UnReck announcement thread.

Maybe the bullies really are passive/aggressives who want a negative pushbutton, rather than an actual voice and power to make contributions to discussions.

[Laelth]

209. That is an astute observation.

I made a significant contribution to my "Ignored" list earlier today, but very few posts from those posters appear in threads actually discussing the future and welfare of DU.

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

248. That's something.

:toast:

[DevonRex]

200. Wonderful! Thank you. nt

[emilyg]

201. Good. Thank you.

[Jester Messiah]

202. Good. [nt]

[cwydro]

204. Thanks for keeping it.

I like it a lot, though I suppose one could say I've abused it as far as unreccing all the whining threads.

But I think those will stop soon, as things settle down.

[MellowDem]

205. Create a "Leastest Page"

for all those threads with the most unrecommendeds. That way the possibly controversial threads still get a chance to be seen by those who want to see them. Or instead of "leastest", maybe a less offensive name, as not all the threads will be bad per se. Maybe the "Controversy Page". Or something.

[Political Heretic]

206. Still seeking an administrative definition of "Quality of threads"

Our motivation for giving you the ability to unrecommend was to improve the overall quality of the threads that make it to the DU Greatest Page

As was mentioned by skinner many posts above this one, "Quality of threads" is a subjective assessment. Fair enough. Obviously true, in fact.

But Skinner can still the term, as he will use it, to explain what, specifically he means by the statement made. Subjective does not mean "undefinable." It means, Skinners definition might differ from someone else's. That's find - I'd like to see the admin's definition.

I mean either it has a meaning, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then there doesn't seem to be a transparent reason for implementing the feature. And more than I care about whether the feature stays in or not, I'd like to have some candid explanation of the reasoning without having to parse ambiguous undefined terms.

I don't think that's terribly unreasonable. I get that its here to stay. Totally got that. But I am interested in this "improve the quality of threads" statement without any definition of "Quality" - that seems sort of important.

[omega minimo]

208. Quality = DoublePlusGood

:hi: :hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

220. Hmmm... maybe it means that when some moron posts a right wing talking point...

in ungrammatical English riddled with illogic that somehow makes the Greatest Page others can get it the heck off. I wish I could remember the exact example, but there was a doozy of an idiotic post a few months ago. Half of the people responding to it simply posted, "why is this on the Greatest Page?" Honestly puzzled why anyone in their right mind would have recommended it. Sometimes I think people with nothing better to do recommend a thread they know is going to be lampooned or skewered. It's really bugging me that I can't remember what that latest one that I noticed was, but it was really out there.

The Greatest Page has never been anything but a popularity contest so what difference does it make if people can vote that something is worthy of recognition and others can vote that it's tripe? Tempest meet the teapot.

[Usrename]

273. Don't you ever open up your mind and consider what is missing?

The whole Clinton involvement in the C Street Fellowship never made the Greatest Page.

Don't you think that is due to the unrec feature? It seems likely that in the past that kind of news would make the top of the Greatest.

Don't you think that the fact that Hillary is a member of the cabal ("The Family) is an important fact for DUers to know?

What is the real point in keeping this kind of information off the Greatest Page? Is it to keep the sheeple in line?

[Pacifist Patriot]

279. Considering the number of original, thought-provoking posts I have...

recommended over the years that never made the Greatest Page? Of course I consider what is missing.

I have no idea if the Clinton involvement in CSF never made the Greatest Page because of unRec. There is another option. Perhaps nobody Rec'd it in the first place and it wouldn't have made the Greatest Page under the old system.

Have you looked at all of the relevant posts to check?

[Usrename]

298. Keep telling yourself that.

There is a whole lot denial around this issue of unreccomend.

The very first post in this thread clearly shows how the feature IS being misused to keep conroversial FACTS out of sight.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6046260


The poster brags that they are using unrec because they don't like the subject matter.

This is not just someone's opinion that is being unrec'ed, it is a fact, it is newsworthy information.

Do you see what I am talking about now?

[Pacifist Patriot]

305. Yet despite this individual's bragging, the thread has a net +51.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. :shrug:

That a few people amongst over a hundred thousand registered users are going to dictate content on a user-driven site? Clearly that poster's bragging didn't exactly resonate.

Stepping aside from the obvious success of the thread you point out, just because something is newsworthy and factual rather than opinion doesn't mean it is a subject that is going to make the Greatest Page. If everything newsworthy made the Greatest Page we'd be scrolling through hundreds and hundreds of articles on that page. And what is newsworthy to me, may not be newsworthy to you. It's very hard to predict what is going to resonate with people. Ask any old-time newspaper editor (rather than the corporate shit we've got these days).

[Usrename]

326. Yep.

Put your fingers in your ears and shout: La, la, la, la...

Why would they hide the unrec count from the members? What is that all about?

[Pacifist Patriot]

222. Here's an example....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4178900

I'm the only one that commented on this one, but please tell me if you consider it an example of competent writing, contains original thought, adds to the discourse and overall is worthy of being an example of what DU has to offer as Great. If you consider this a quality post I'm looking forward to your reasons why.

[Political Heretic]

229. That's not a definition.

It's a specific example without a definition of "quality."

Saying "this is an example of what isn't quality" isn't a definition of what "quality" means.

[Beetwasher]

238. Funny, You Weren't Concerned About Definitions When People Could ONLY Recommend

Why now is a definition so important to you? It's the same definition as it was then. Only now there are more voting options.

[Political Heretic]

259. To my knowledge, Skinner never made a posted about it refering to improving the "quality of threads"

So... :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

319. Why Else Would You Recommend??

Except based on YOUR perception of the "quality"?

[Pacifist Patriot]

278. You didn't think this statement constitutes a definition?

"competent writing, contains original thought, adds to the discourse and overall is worthy of being an example of what DU has to offer as Great."

That's what it means to me. May be something entirely different to someone else.

How about a recommendation in the other direction? My opinion is that these are great posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6069463

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6004233

Of course, since I am only one out of 142,800 user registrations my personal definition will not trump anyone else's.

After a few days I think it's still too early to tell if the quality of what appears on the Greatest Page improves or not. I gave you an opinion on what might be considered "quality." And yes, I know that like assholes, everyone's got one. You and anyone else are free to disagree with my personal criteria for recommending (and now unrecommending) threads.

1. I prefer to recommend original work over article reposts.
2. I prefer to recommend posts in which the author has a decent command of written English. For example, I will never recommend a post that rambles on with no paragraph breaks or uses random punctuation.
3. I prefer to recommend posts in which the author proposes constructive activism or solutions.
4. I prefer to recommend posts that make me consider an issue in a new light I had never considered before.

I have recommended countless posts that never made it to the Greatest Page. Each one a shame, in my opinion, but not something to dwell on.

[Political Heretic]

309. As Skinner pointed out, the definition is "subjective." Thus, I want Skinner's definition

not anyone else's.

And I meant that the link to the thread wasn't a definition.

By the way, several words used in that definition is empty and vacuous.

"adds to the discourse?" -- as defined, HOW?

"overall is worthy of being an example of what DU has to offer" -- what the fuck does that even mean?

[Pacifist Patriot]

312. As you said, it is subjective.

Which is all I've been trying to point out. You're asking for something that likely does not exist.

To me, "adds to the discourse" means something that people find interesting enough to talk about. Not just K & R or a pass on by. I like it when posts generate dialogue not just repetitive responses. It means not posting the same thing others have said ad nauseum, but providing a new perspective or new information. It's a thread where people are challenged to think and defend their ideas, but in a productive way.

What the fuck does, "overall is worthy of being an example of what DU has to offer" mean? Yet again, something different to everyone. In my opinion, it means something that I would refer non-DUers to as representative of what this site entails. It would be something that I wouldn't cringe if someone stumbled upon and used as a yard stick by which to evaluate the site.

My opinion means absolutely nothing to you because I'm not Skinner. Fair enough.

May I ask what "quality" means to you in reference to DU's Greatest Page?

[Political Heretic]

313. Subjective doesn't mean undefinable, and I'm not interested in YOUR definition.

I'm interested in the administrator's definition.

[Pacifist Patriot]

321. I completely understand that, as I have said.

I am curious what your definition is, but if you don't care to share your thoughts on the subject I shall consider the discussion ended. Thank you for your time.

[noamnety]

243. ?

"an example of competent writing, contains original thought, adds to the discourse and overall is worthy of being an example of what DU has to offer as Great."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8528457

?

[Pacifist Patriot]

275. I wouldn't have Rec'd that if I had seen it.

No system is perfect. It's an aggregative of a bunch of people's opinions. I think unRec is likely to improve quality on the Greatest Page overall. Time may prove me wrong. I just refuse to get wrapped around the axel over it.

[NC_Nurse]

207. I'm glad. Now I actually visit the Greatest page. I didn't before. I still read in GD

and GD:p and a few other forums too, but it's nice to be able to scan the greatest page first and see
the big topics of interest to me. Thanks.

[ipaint]

210. Works for me

My views are to the left of the majority on DU so I search out the unreccommended threads.

[BlooInBloo]

211. Can you track whether Greatest page usage goes up or down pre/post unrec?

[Pharaoh]

212. well it sure helps

shoot down those pesky 911 truth threads!

[McCamy Taylor]

213. If the mods will delete accounts of folks who unreccomend the wrong threads how is that

different from giving the DU mods editorial control over what is posted here? If what you really want to accomplish is more editorial control, just assume more editorial control. If its your board. You can do what you want.

DU may become a bit like the sham representative democracy in which we all participate, the one where each person gets one vote and that is supposed to blind us to the fact that those with lots of money are the ones who really decide elections. The easiest way to keep people happy under a dictatorship is to convince them that they chose their leader.

[Pacifist Patriot]

218. That isn't what he said.

It's not a matter of unrecommending the wrong threads, it is a user abusing the system. I get the impression that means perhaps targeting a specific poster or going through the Greatest Page and unrecommending everything. It doesn't sound like they have the time, patience or energy to function as Draconian and Dictatorial Overlords.

[Skinner]

223. What she said. (nt)

[Pacifist Patriot]

224. Pssst....what SHE said.

:)

[Skinner]

225. D'oh!

I'm sorry about that. :blush:

[Pacifist Patriot]

226. Well of course you have the time to memorize everyone's profile.

You're God on a Dictator's Throne, right?

[Skinner]

227. Well, I could have just clicked your profile to check before I posted.

I am embarrassed that I did not.

[stray cat]

215. Thanks Skinner - good idea!

[MADem]

216. Thank you. The Greatest Page is now a point of pride and a good starting place. NT

[NashVegas]

230. Thanks, Skinner

[RavensChick]

231. No, thank you for this feature!

I have no problem with it. In fact, it shows that there are more topics that are being recommended way more than previously. It's a good tool and I'll continue to use it. Thanks again!

:patriot:

[inna]

233. please DO show the total #s of recs and unrecs. (Bueller, Bueller!)

seriously, what is the argument against transparency in this case, Skinner and other Admins??

(BUELLER!!!! :rofl: )

[Moochy]

245. that question is apparently on ignore

its an advanced ignore feature that we don't have access to? :shrug:

[patriotvoice]

235. Looks good!

Even seems to be backdoor-entry resistant.

[pleah]

237. Fine by me!

K&R :hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

239. I read the GP now, whereas I didn't before. I love it. Thanks for all the hard work!

[sendero]

242. Thank you for not caving..

... to the gory glory seekers who would use your name in death.

[JNelson6563]

246. Thank you.

Bravo!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

251. Thank you for continuing to be innovative in your concept and open minded

to constructive criticism. Keep up the good work. K&R

[goclark]

253. I like it Skinner nt

[Norrin Radd]

254. The feature I'd like to see is a redirect back to the thread one was looking

at, after logging in (I usually visit by clicking on a link via rss feed, and then I log in).

[garthranzz]

256. I like it. I'm glad you're keeping it. N/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

257. Bad idea

[applegrove]

258. I agree. I like the Greatest Page much better now.

[Zavulon]

260. Good.

For the life of me, I'll never understand the massive quantity of whining and knotted panties regarding the new feature. I personally love it, but even if I didn't I wouldn't feel the need to scream, cry and grab the nearest box of Kleenex.

[BobTheSubgenius]

261. Excellent!

I think it's been a positive change...not that that matters in light of the announcement, but I still like the apparent result.

[bridgit]

264. Never give up, never surrender!

[Liberation Angel]

266. SKINNER! Can you PLEASE make an exception for my antinuke threads?

My kids and I and spouse were diagnosed, by an MD, with radiation-caused hypothyroidism.

I grew up in a nuclear community and have lost many family and friends to cancer and birth defects or mutation and genetic disorders which the evidence shows killed or severely damaged them (as well as my family).

The pronuclear contingent on DU take great delight in ridiculing me and unwrecking my lobbying for the antinuclear cause.

Can you set up a forum where they cannot unrec my threads so that they cannot perpetually keep me from EVER making the greatest page?

Can you WATCH them to see whether they are gaming the system?


Can you keep an eye on their isp's to be sure they are not corporate operatives?

The nuclear corporations are the most poweful on the planet.

Reportedly both Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod worked for the nuke industry or are beholden to them.

Obama has to make a decision VERY SOON if nuclear industry subsidies re going to be in the energy bill.

IF industry operative are gaming the system with the unrec function they will marginalize debate on this issue and keep it les visible.

So with respect to the nuclear power and subsidy issue only can you pay special attention and consider allowing such threads to NOT be marginalize by the unrec feature?

I really think that this is one area where the critics of unrec are dead on right: corporate interests may be at work to kill the solar/renewable movement in fvor of nukes and coal.

The posters are mean spirited, vindictive, they bait to try to get threads locked and people banned, and they swarm like flies to stinky poop.

So a little help from the admins is needed on this issue.

I would suggest the same might be said of prosecutions for tortre etc, but you already made me look like an idiot once today on THAT issue and I am glad that babylonsister's BLOWJOB thread soared while her piece on possible Holder torture prosecutor and the opposition of Emanuel an Axelrod died an ignoble death. Clearly i was wrong about that thread.

[SidDithers]

290. You really want your own forum, where your posts will be protected?...

If you think you deserve special treatment, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Your opinions are among thousands here at DU. There's nothing particularly "special" about them. They will live or die on their merits, and how they're presented.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

291. On the nuclear power issue while it is being debated ---disable the unrec button

the pronukers have killed every thread on this issue and the nuke industry, the most powerful in the world because they control weapons proliferation, have the resources to game this system with multiple IP addresses.

That means it is impossible to get a fair read on THIS issue.
So my argument is that it deserves special status as a "protected" issue.

For example, my pronuke, no nuke poll at GD presidential ha 85 pronuke votes, 64 no nuke votes and THREE recs (meaning generally that even though there are more pronuke votes there is a slim majority of those who support my position on this.

HOW is it possible (especially when i specifically ASKED people to rec if they support my position) that the recs would reflect a majority supporting my position while the poll votes indicate otherwise.

This means the system may be getting gamed and i believe it is.

[SidDithers]

294. No, according to the poll, there's a pretty clear majority...

who don't support your position on nuclear energy.

The number of recs for your thread is completely unrelated to the results of the poll. Maybe all the anti-nukes recc'd your thread, while the only a portion of the "pro-nuke" voters unrecc'd the thread. Maybe some "pro-nuke" voters recc'd your thread to increase it's visibility. I guess you've got to go searching for something positive, tho, when the results of your poll are so clearly different from what you thought they were going to be.

You've already been made to look silly once, with your misguided speculation about that babylonsister post. Maybe you should quit while you're behind.

Sid

[HamdenRice]

310. There's another solution

And I believe that there is a group such as you describe. Rather than get a separate forum or special status, you can alert the mods. They said they will monitor for abuse. They are able I believe to identify if a particular posse is unrecing you and deny them that capability.

[tomm2thumbs]

269. as long as multiple accounts can't sneak in and undermine a thread I think it is fine

hopefully the IP addresses can be noted on multiple accounts that attempt to undermine threads so they aren't given several votes either way

[Liberation Angel]

289. IP addresses can be gamed by well-resourced disruptors

If you have the resources (which most enemies of democracy have, especially after the last 8 years) then they can utilize multiple IP addresses and off site organization to operate.

They have to keep the activity to a minimum but with over 100,000 registered users here nd thousands of regular posters, keeping track of these activities will be almost impossible.

See my post just above.

I can think of several areas where this could be mostly employed: health care, nuclear energy, gay rights/marriage (while this is not a corporate issue it is an idealogical one which many corporate sponsors might support)

AND

threads which actually make DU look bad (the blowjob thread, simply because of the OP thread title ] name, can be gamed to rise to the top.

Many multiple users with resoruces can game al of DU with the unrec function, marginalize the controversial issues or those which are a threat to corporofascism, and keep us as just another mainstream democratic site.

I came to DU because it was full of people who wer way to the left of center, anti-DLC sorts NOT maintstream centrists and corporofascist appeasers and colaborators.

and BTW

of course while such threads which cast a negative light on DU could have been gamed before, these can be promoted while those which are from the firnges which have a big following here at DU can be kept out of site. So gobbledygook wil end up on the greatest page an the front page and really serious debates can be derailed and sent to the back pages unless people really fight to keep them in the top of their forums.

[tomm2thumbs]

292. maybe if that is true, we should all be given a set number of unrecs a month, and use them wisely

or is that a dumb idea - like being given a certain amount of money to begin the game of Monopoly with?

[Liberation Angel]

293. Thats a great idea! SKINNER TAKE NOTICE! GREAT IDEA ALERT!

although I guess, now that I think about it, multiple ip address crews could still have an advantage over everyone else.

[alcibiades_mystery]

272. Nice.

Best DU controversy since I dunno when. Awesome!

[sallylou666]

274. Blow job threads are real quality

If this new system is supposed to result in quality, why is there a thread about blow jobs there? Just wondering!

[TexasObserver]

276. I would have preferred that thread not be there, but the tribe has voted.

I unrecommended that one, for the very reason it had Blow Job in the topic line. I'm not opposed to using such terms, and do so frequently, but I'm not on the Greatest Page as the face for DU.

But more to the point, it's a democratic vote. If the site ownership wants to overrule such threads, they can, and if they don't, we'll have blow job threads on occasion. Such is the nature of voting. You don't always get the result you want.

[Pacifist Patriot]

280. Is there really a thread "about" blow jobs?

Like how to give one?

I saw a popular thread about a mother who was offended by the media's reaction to someone who was offended by the mention of one during a broadcast. A thread that mentioned the true horrors of the recent past, things truly worthy of offense. I didn't see one about blow jobs. What am I missing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

286. No, that's the one they're talking about

It's currently top of the Greatest page. Yeah, it's about broadcasting, and the definitions of obscenity. Suitable subjects for serious discussion and possible recommendation, I think just about everyone here would agree.

[demoleft]

277. yes, removing the '<0' will at least demotivate UNrec abusers. soon please. n/t

[WillyT]

281. Wee !!! - A Victory For The Hectors And Scolds !!!

I'm sure we'll have a nice, centrist, "junk" free board, that will look acceptable, and be non-threatening to people who've never been here before.

And it will still be called DemocraticUnderground... but I think it will be less than what it once was, not more.

:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

284. I think that in spite of some drawbacks it is working quite well

Besides determining what articles make it to the greatest page, the system establishes some actual measurement of DU opinion.

In the past one could get the impression based on a small handful of recommends that certain opinions that were clearly in the minority were the majority opinion. We can now actually see some evidence of what the general consensus of DU really is.

What emerges is that most DUers are "to the left" of the President, yet still strongly support him. It is after all quite possible to support single-payer universal health care, gay marriage and to seek fundamental changes in American Middle East policy without turning it into a denunciation of President Obama. It is still quite possible to advocate for positions well "to the left" of President Obama without framing the argument into "Obama has betrayed us".

[Why Syzygy]

285. Thanks, Skinner. I like the < 0 notation personally. nt

[On the Road]

295. If the Haters are Swamping the Boosters,

and there's too much perceived negativity in all the <0 threads, one simple solution would be to simply give a vote for UNREC a smaller weighting than for REC -- maybe half. That would allow the system to work as it does now but the results would be more positive an it would take more naysayers to drown a thread out.

[reflection]

297. The labels 'haters' and 'boosters' skew the argument.

Conversely, if I argued that recs needed a 1/2 weighting because the Sycophants/Cheerleaders are swamping the Serious Thinkers, then my point would be equally invalid.

[On the Road]

300. It Wasn't Meant to Skew it to One Side

There are various reasons posts get unrecommended.

It was based on the observation that it might be considered undesirable to have so many threads below zero -- it casts a pall over the site if you keep reading thread after threads in negative territory.

Changing the weighting is very simple and direct way to change that while keeping all the other rules and procuedres intact. I don't even claim to know what the optimal weight is. Probably could use some fine-tuning.

[omega minimo]

320. You assume the Haters are not the Boosters.

Wrong.

Many of the red flags and questions about this new button, a solution to a supposed extreme problem many were not even aware of, was the hateful enthusiasm that followed the announcement.

Those folks made it appear this would be a passive/aggressive/bullying/marginalizing free for all. Maybe some of those folks are among the ones the Admins determined were abusive and lost the privilege.

The reaction of others to any questions or discussion about this solution-to-a-problem-many-knew-nothing-about was also hostile and dismissive.

Those are the "Haters," if you want to use that term. Their belligerence and/or disregard and the bizarre claim by so many to know "what nearly all DUers think" or "we're the Majority," brought out a lot of ugliness.

Not an encouraging start.

While Admin and folks consider how this is working, I hope they will consider those who used Rec and don't plan to use it as much or UnRec much at all, because it's turned into such a sad bloodsport. There are other ways to achieve "quality" on the Greatest Page and change objectionable repetitious behaviors like "Rec this up;" other than pitting DUers against each other the way this has.

That said, apparently many folks thought of the Greatest and Recs as a jealous popularity contest already. That was another shock.

As long as I've been here, it's been Recs, which seemed a positive. Naive to NOT need it be a competition -- no it's not "voting" and it's not "democracy" -- with numbers disappearing into a void?



So here we are:

My suggestions for tweaking this would be:

1. Show the total and individual tallies: Recs and UnRecks

2. An UnRec would Kick the thread.
This provides some assurance the UnRecker gave some thought to their detraction;
Provides those who might agree it's Recommended another opportunity to see the thread, if it doesn't reach Greatest.

[On the Road]

324. It's Largely Immaterial Who the Sides are

It varies by subject and time frame. Days involving reports on Obama's handling of Afghanistan are very different from days in which Bush's DoJ was being investigated for political firings

It should not be a matter of "oh, let's reward people with these particular views and suppress others with these views." The feature should be issue- and poster-neutral.

The question I'm bringing up is, now that DU has some experience with the feautre, whether the overall ratio of positive to negative recommendations is well calibrated. Given the large number of <0 threads, it may not be.

[onehandle]

296. I fully approve for this system, which I have been begging for years for. nt

[slackmaster]

301. Good!

I will continue on my mission to Unrec every Sarah Palin thread.

[Tarc]

302. I fully approve of this feature

And will now unrecommended this thread in celebration.

:)

[stubtoe]

307. Good. It really seems to be helping with the "rec if you ..." threads

Which do not belong on any Greatest page at all.

[ItNerd4life]

311. How about a feature that Unrec's FreeRepublic?

You guys have shown intelligence and insight, now it's time to expand your horizons beyond DU!

[CakeGrrl]

322. Good. I don't see the problem with it.

Topical threads are being created and can still be found, Obama critics are posting to their hearts' content without censorship, so it seems like everyone has what they want, even if they think they don't.

:evilgrin:

[LanternWaste]

325. Good. Thank you, Skinner...

Good. Thank you, Skinner. I believe the function allows a more even-handed, rational, short-hand review of any particular post... allowing those of actual substance to stand on their own merits, whilst reducing the popularity-contest and the petulant threads from dominating.

I certainly hope you keep it, but will not be devastated by its absence should you choose that route either. And, as an added bonus to me, it frustrates to no end many of those who are simply more fun to read when they are the most frustrated and over-dramatizing the nits and the picks of life... much like what has already happened on this thread (but that's just the devil in me speaking...) :)